|Documents | A.Dugin | Eurasian Idea | 2004|
Home Page |
Eurasian theory in 4 maps |
Eurasian Common House | Eurasian Manifest | Eurasian Path | Eurasian Vision | Millstones of eruasianism | Structure
The Eurasian Idea
What is Eurasianism today? What forms the concept of Eurasia? -- Seven senses
of word Eurasianism -- Evolution of notion of Eurasianism
Changes in the original meaning of Eurasianism
Different terms lose their original meaning though their daily use over the
course of many years. Such fundamental notions as socialism, capitalism, democracy,
fascism have changed profoundly. In fact, they have turned banal.
The terms "Eurasianism" and "Eurasia" also have some uncertainties
because they are new, they belong to a new political language and intellectual
context that is only being created today.
The Eurasian Idea mirrors a very active dynamical process. It's meaning has
become clearer throughout history but needs to be further developed.
Eurasianism as a philosophical struggle
The Eurasian Idea represents a fundamental revision of the political, ideological,
ethnic, and religious history of mankind, and it offers a new system of classification
and categories that will overcome standard cliches. The Eurasian theory went
through two stages - a formational period of classical Eurasianism at the beginning
of the XX century by Russian emigrant intellectuals (Trubeckoy, Savickiy, Alekseev,
Suvchinckiy, Iljin, Bromberg, Hara-Davan etc.) followed by the historical works
of Leonid Gumilev and, finally, the constitution of neo-Eurasianism (second
half of 1980's to the present).
Classical Eurasian theory undoubtedly belongs to past and can be correctly
classified within the framework of ideologies of the XX century. Classical Eurasianism
might have passed, but neo-Eurasianism has given it a second birth, a new sense,
scale, and meaning. When the Eurasian Idea arose from its ashes, it became less
obvious, but has since revealed its hidden potential.
Through neo-Eurasianism, the entire Eurasian theory has received a new dimension.
Today we cannot ignore the large historical period of neo-Eurasianism and must
try to comprehend it in its modern context. Furthermore, we will describe the
various aspects of this notion.
Eurasianism as a global trend
Globalization as the main body of modern history
In the broad sense, the Eurasian Idea and even Eurasia as concept do not strictly
correspond to the geographical boundaries of the Eurasian continent. The Eurasian
Idea is a global-scale strategy that acknowledges the objectivity of globalization
and the termination of "nation-states" (Etats-Nations), but at the
same time offers a different scenario of globalization, which entails no unipolar
world or united global government. Instead, it offers several global zones (poles).
The Eurasian Idea is an alternative or multipolar version of globalization,
but globalization is the currently the major fundamental world process that
is deciding the main vector of modern history.
Paradigm of globalization - paradigm of Atlantism
Today’s nation-state is being transformed into a global state; we are facing
the constitution of planetary governmental systems within a single administrative-economic
system. To believe that all nations, social classes, and economic models might
suddenly begin to cooperate on the basis of this new planet-wide logic is wrong.
Globalization is a one-dimensional, one-vector phenomenon that tries to universalize
the Western (Anglo-Saxon, American) point of view of how to best manage human
history. It is (very often connected with suppression and violence) the unification
of different social-political, ethnic, religious, and national structures into
one system. It is a Western European historical trend that has reached its peak
through its domination of the United States of America.
Globalization is the imposing of the Atlantic paradigm. Globalization as Atlantism
absolutely tries to avoid this definition. Proponents of globalization argue
that when there will be no alternative to Atlantism and that it will stop being
Atlantism. The American political philosopher F. Fukuyama writes about the "end
of History," which actually means the end of geopolitical history and the
conflict between Atlantism and Eurasianism. This means a new architecture of
a world system with no opposition and with only one pole - the pole of Atlantism.
We may also refer to this as the New World Order. The model of opposition between
two poles (East-West, North-South) transforms to the center-outskirt model (center
- West, "rich North," outskirt - South). This variant of world architecture
is completely at odds with the concept of Eurasianism.
Unipolar globalization has an alternative
Today the New World Order is nothing more than a project, plan, or trend. It
is very serious, but it is not fatal. Adherents of globalization deny any alternative
plan for future, but today we are experiencing a large-scale phenomenon - contra-globalism,
and the Eurasian Idea coordinates all opponents of unipolar globalization in
a constructive way. Moreover, it offers the competing idea of multipolar globalization
Eurasianism as pluriversum
Eurasianism rejects the center-outskirt model of the world. Instead, the Eurasian
Idea suggests that the planet consists of a constellation of autonomous living
spaces partially open to each other. These areas are not national-states, but
a coalition of states, reorganized into continental federations or "democratic
empires" with a large degree of inner self-government. Each of these areas
is multipolar, including a complicated system of ethnic, cultural, religious
and administrative factors.
In this global sense, Eurasianism is open to everyone, regardless of one’s
place of birth, residence, nationality or citizenship. Eurasianism provides
an opportunity to choose a future different from the cliche of Atlantism and
one value system for all of mankind. Eurasianism does not merely seek the past
or to preserve the current status quo, but strives for the future,acknowledging
that the world’s current structure needs radical change, that nation states
and industrial society have exhausted all their resources. The Eurasian Idea
does not see the creation of a world government on the basis of liberal-democratic
values as the one and only path for mankind. In its most basic sense, Eurasianism
in the XXI century is defined as the adherence to alter-globalization, synonymous
with a multipolar world.
Atlantism is not universal
Eurasianism absolutely rejects the universalism of Atlantism and Americanism.
The pattern of Western-Europe and America has many attractive features that
can be adopted and praised, but, as a whole, it is merely a cultural system
that has the right to exist in its own historical context along with other civilizations
and cultural systems.
The Eurasian Idea protects not only anti-Atlantic value systems, but the diversity
of value structures. It is a kind of "poliversum" that provides living
space for everyone, including the USA and Atlantism, along with other civilizations,
because Eurasianism also defends the civilizations of Africa, both American
continents, and the Pacific area parallel to the Eurasian Motherland.
The Eurasian Idea promotes a global revolutionary idea
The Eurasian Idea on a global scale is a global revolutionary concept, called
upon to be a new platform for mutual understanding and cooperation for a large
conglomerate of different powers: states, nations, cultures, and religions that
reject the Atlantic version of globalization.
If we analyze the declarations and statements of various politicians, philosophers,
and intellectuals we will see that majority of them are adherents (sometimes
unaware) of the Eurasian Idea.
If we will think about all of those who disagree with the "end of history"
our spirits will be raised and the failure of the American concept of strategic
security for the XXI century connected with constituting the unipolar world
will be much more realistic.
Eurasianism is the sum of the natural, artificial, objective, and subjective
obstacles on the path of unipolar globalization; it offers a constructive, positive
opposition to globalism instead of simple negation.
These obstacles, however, remain uncoordinated in the meantime, and proponents
of Atlantism are able to manage them easily. Yet, if these obstacles can somehow
be integrated into a united force, they will be can be integrated into something
united and the likelihood of victory will become much more serious.
Eurasianism as the Old World (continent)
The New World is a part of the Second Old World or a more specific and narrow
sense of the word Eurasianism applicable to what we call the Old World. The
Notion of the Old World (traditionally regarding Europe) can be considered in
a much wider context. It is multi-civilizational super space, inhabited by nations,
states, cultures, ethnicities, and religions connected to each other historically
and geographically by dialectic destiny. The Old World is an organic product
of human history.
The Old World is often opposed to the New World, the American continent, discovered
by Europeans and transformed into a platform for an artificial civilization,
where European projects of modernism were created. It was built based upon human-produced
ideologies as a purified civilization of modernism.
The United States was the successful creation of the "perfect society,"
formed by intellectuals from England, Ireland, and France, while the countries
of South and Central America remained colonies of the Old World. Germany and
Eastern Europe were less influenced this idea of a “perfect society.»
In the terms of Oswald Spengler, dualism between the Old and New World can
be brought to opposites: culture-civilization, organic-artificial, historical-technical.
The New World as Messiah
As a historical product of Western Europe during its evolution, the New World
very early on realized its "messiah" destiny, where the liberal-democratic
ideals of the Enlightment were combined with the eschatological ideas of radical
protestant sects. This was called the theory of Manifest Destiny, which became
the new symbol of belief for generations of Americans. According to this theory,
American civilization overtook all cultures and civilizations of the Old World
and in its current universal form, it is obligatory for all nations of the planet.
With time, this theory directly confronted, not only the cultures of the East
and Asia, but came into conflict with Europe, which seemed to the Americans
to be archaic and full of prejudice and antiquated traditions.
In turn, the New World turned away from the heritage of the Old World. Directly
following WWII, the New World became the indisputable leader in Europe itself
with the "criteria of verity" of others. This inspired a corresponding
wave of American dominance and at a parallel time the beginning of a movement
that seeks geopolitical liberation from the brutal, transoceanic, strategic,
economic, and political control of the "elder Brother.»
Integration of the Eurasian continent
In the XX century, Europe became aware of its common identity and step by step
started to move towards the integration of all its nation into a common union,
able to guarantee full sovereignty, security, and freedom to itself and all
The creation of the European Union became the most important event that helped
Europe restore its status as a world power alongside the United States of America.
This was the response of the Old World to the excessive challenge of the New
If we consider the alliance of the USA and Western Europe as the Atlantic vector
of European development, European integration under the aegis of the continental
countries (Germany, France) may be called European Eurasianism. This becomes
more and more obvious if we take into consideration the theory of Europe from
the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals (S. de Goll) or even to Vladivostok. In other
words, the integration of the Old World includes the vast territory of Russian
Thus, Eurasianism in this context may be defined as a project of the strategic,
geopolitical, and economic integration of the north of Eurasian continent, considered
the cradle of European history and the matrix of European nations.
Parallel with Turkey, Russia (alike ancestors of the Europeans) is historically
connected with the Turkic, Mongolian, and Caucasus nations. Russia gives the
integration of Europe an Eurasian dimension in both the symbolic and geographic
senses (identification of Eurasianism with continentalism).
During last few centuries, the idea of European integration has been proposed
by the revolutionary faction of European elites. In ancient times, similar attempts
were made by Alexander the Great (integration of the Eurasian continent) and
Genghis khan (founder of history’s largest empire).
Eurasia as three great living-spaces, integrated across the meridian
Three Eurasian belts (meridian zones)
The horizontal vector of integration is followed by a vertical vector.
Eurasian plans for the future presume the division of the planet into four
vertical geographical belts (meridian zones) from North to South.
Both American continents will form one common space oriented on and controlled
by the USA within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine. This is the Atlantic
In addition to the above zone, three others are planned. They are the following:
· Euro-Africa, with the European Union as its center;
· Russian-Central Asian zone;
· Pacific zone
Within these zones, the regional division of labor and the creation of developmental
areas and corridors of growth will take place.
Each of these belts (meridian zones) counterbalance each other and all of them
together counterbalance the Atlantic meridian zone. In the future, these belts
might be the foundation upon which to build a multipolar world: the number of
poles will be more than two; however, the number will be much less than the
number of current nation-states. The Eurasian model proposes that the number
of poles must be four.
The Meridian zones in the Eurasian project consist of several "Great Spaces"
or "democratic empires." Each possesses relative freedom and independence
but is strategically integrated into a corresponding meridian zone.
The Great Spaces correspond to the boundaries of civilizations and include
several nation-states or unions of states.
The European Union and Arab Great Space, which integrates North, Trans-Saharan
Africa and the Middle East, form Euro-Africa.
The Russian-Central Asian zone is formed by three Great Spaces that sometimes
overlap each other. The first is the Russian Federation along with several countries
of the CIS - members of the Eurasian Union. Second is the Great Space of continental
Islam (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan). The Asian countries of the CIS
intersect with this zone.
The third Great Space is Hindustan, which is a self-dependent civilization
The Pacific meridian zone is determined by a condominium of two great spaces
(China and Japan) and also includes Indonesia, Malaysia, The Philippines, and
Australia (some researchers connect it with the American meridian zone). This
geopolitical region is very mosaic and can be differentiated by many criteria.
The American meridian zone consist of the American-Canadian, Central, and North
American Great Spaces.
Importance of the fourth zone
The structure of the world based upon meridian zones is accepted by most American
geopoliticians who seek the creation of a New World Order and unipolar globalization.
However, a stumbling block is the existence of the Russian-Central Asian meridian
space: the presence or absence of this belt radically changes the geopolitical
picture of the world.
Atlantic futurologists divide the world into the three following zones:
· American pole, with the European Union as its close-range periphery (Euro-Africa
as an exemption) and
· the Asian and Pacific regions as its long-range periphery.
· Russia and Central Asia are fractional, but without it as an independent
meridian zone, our world is unipolar.
This last meridian zone counterbalances American pressure and provides the
European and Pacific zones ability to act like self-dependent civilization poles.
Real multipolar balance, freedom, and the independence of meridian belts,Great
Spaces, and nation-states depend upon the successful creation of a forth zone.
Moreover, its is not enough to be one pole in a two-pole model of the world:
the rapid progress of the United States of America can be counterbalanced only
by the synergy of all three meridian zones.
The Eurasian project proposes this four-zone super-project on a geopolitical
Eurasianism as Russian-Central Asian integration
Fourth meridian zone - Russian-Asian meridian integration. The central issue
of this process is the implementation of a Moscow-Teheran axis. The whole process
of integration depends on the successful establishment of a strategic middle
and long-term partnership with Iran. Iranian and Russian economic, military,
and political potential together will increase the process of the zone integration,
making the zone irreversible and autonomous.
The Moscow-Teheran axis will be a basis for further integration. Both Moscow
and Iran are self-sufficient powers, able to create their own organizational
strategic model of the region.
Eurasian plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan
The integration vector with Iran is vitally important for Russia to gain access
to warm-water ports as well as for the political-religious reorganization of
Central Asia (Asian countries of CIS, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). Close cooperation
with Iran presumes the transformation of
the Afghani-Pakistani area into a free Islamic confederation, loyal both to
Moscow and Iran. The reason this is necessary is that the independent states
of Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the continuing source of destabilization,
threatening neighboring countries. The geopolitical struggle will provide the
ability to implement a new Central-Asian federation and transform this complicated
region into one of cooperation and prosperity area.
Russian-Indian cooperation is the second most important meridian axis in the
integration on the Eurasian continent and collective Eurasian security systems.
Moscow will play an important role, decreasing the tensions between Deli and
Islamabad (Kashmir). The Eurasian plan for India, sponsored by Moscow, is the
creation of a federation that will mirror the diversity of Indian society with
its numerous ethnic and religious minorities, including Sikhs and Muslims
The main regional partner in the integration process of Central Asia is Turkey.
The Eurasian Idea is already becoming rather popular there today because of
Western trends interlaced with Eastern. Turkey acknowledges its civilization
differences with the European Union, its regional goals and interests, the threat
of globalization, and further loss of sovereignty.
It is strategically imperative for Turkey to establish a strategic partnership
with the Russian Federation and Iran. Turkey will be able to maintain its traditions
only within the framework of a multipolar world. Certain factions of Turkish
society understand this situation - from politicians and socialists to religious
and military elites. Thus, the Moscow-Ankara axis can become geopolitical reality
despite a long-term period of mutual estrangement.
The Caucasus is the most problematic region to Eurasian integration because
its mosaic of cultures and ethnicities easily leads to tensions between nations.
This is one of main weapons used by those who seek to stop integration processes
across Eurasian continent. The Caucasus region is inhabited by nations belonging
to different states and civilization areas. This region must be a polygon for
testing different methods of cooperation between peoples, because what can succeed
can succeed across the Eurasian continent. The Eurasian solution to this problem
lies not in the creation of ethnic-based states or assigning one nation strictly
to one state, but in the development of a flexible federation on the basis of
ethnic and cultural differences within the common strategic context of the meridian
The result of this plan is a system of a half-axis between Moscow and the Caucasian
centers, (Moscow-Baku, Moscow-Erevan, Moscow-Tbilissi, Moscow-Mahachkala, Moscow-Grozny,
etc.) and between the Caucasian centers and Russia's allies within the Eurasian
project (Baku-Ankara, Erevan-Teheran etc.).
Eurasian plan for Central Asia
Central Asia must move towards integration into a united, strategic, and economic
block with the Russian Federation within the framework of the Eurasian Union,
the successor of the CIS. The main function of this specific area is the rapprochement
of Russia with the countries of continental Islam (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan).
From the very beginning, the Central-Asian sector must have various vectors
of integration. One plan will make the Russian Federation the main partner (similarities
of culture, economic and energetic interests, a common strategic security system).
The alternate plan is to place the accent on ethnic and religious resemblance:
Turkic, Iranian, and Islamic worlds.
Eurasian integration of post-soviet territories
A more specific meaning of Eurasianism, partially similar to the definitions
of the Eurasian intellectuals of 20-30s of the XX century is connected with
the process of the local integration of post-soviet territories.
Different forms of similar integration can be seen in history: from the Huns
and other (Mongol, Turkic, and Indo-European) nomad empires to the empire of
Genghis khan and his successors. More recent integration was led by the Russian
Romanov Empire and, later, the USSR. Today, the Eurasian Union is continuing
these traditions of integration through a unique ideological model that takes
into consideration democratic procedures; respects the rights of nations; and
pays attention to the cultural, lingual, and ethnic features of all union members.
Eurasianism is the philosophy of integration of the post-Soviet territory on
a democratic, non-violent, and voluntary basis without the domination of any
one religious or ethnic group.
Astana, Dushanbe, and Bishkek as the main force of integration
Different Asian republics of the CIS treat the process of post-soviet integration
unequally. The most active adherent to integration is Kazakhstan. President
of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev is a staunch supporter of the Eurasian Idea.
Kyrgyz and Tajikistan similarly support the process of integration, though their
support less tangible in comparison with Kazakhstan.
Tashkent and Ashabad
Uzbekistan and especially Turkmenistan oppose the integration process, trying
to gain the maximum positive results from their recently achieved national sovereignty.
However, very soon, due to the increasing rate of globalization, both states
will face a dilemma: to lose sovereignty and melt into unified global world
with its domination by American liberal values or to preserve cultural and religious
identity in the context of the Eurasian Union. In our opinion, an unbiased comparison
of these two options will lead to the second one, naturally sequential for both
countries and their history.
Armenia continues to gravitate towards the Eurasian Union and considers the
Russian Federation an important supporter and conciliator that helps it to manage
relations with its Muslim neighbors. It is notable that Teheran prefers to establish
a partnership with ethnically close Armenian. This fact allows us to consider
two half-axis - Moscow-Erevan and Erevan-Teheran -as positive prerequisites
Baku remains neutral, but this situation will drastically change with the continued
movement of Ankara towards Eurasianism (it will immediately affect Azerbaijan).
Analysis of the Azerbaijani cultural system shows that this state is closer
to Russian Federation and post-Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central
Asia than to religious Iran and even moderate Turkey.
Georgia is the key problem of the region. The mosaic character of the Georgian
state is the cause of serious problems during the construction of a new national
state that is strongly rejected by its ethnic minorities: Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Adjaria, etc. Furthermore, the Georgian state does not have any strong partners
in the region and forced to seek a partnership with the USA and NATO to counterbalance
Russian influence. Georgia is a major threat, able to sabotage the very process
of Eurasian integration. The solution to this problem is found in the Orthodox
culture of Georgia, with its Eurasian features and traditions.
Ukraine and Belarus - Slavic countries of the CIS
It is enough to gain the support of Kazakhstan and Ukraine to succeed in creation
of the Eurasian Union. The Moscow-Astana-Kiev geopolitical triangle is a frame
able to guarantee the stability of the Eurasian Union, which is why negotiations
with Kiev are urgent like never before. Russia and Ukraine have very much in
common: culture, language, religious, and ethnic similarities. These aspects
need to be highlighted because from the beginning of Ukraine’s recent sovereignty
Russophobia and disintegration have been promoted.
Many countries of the EU can positively influence the Ukrainian government,
because they are interested in political harmony in Eastern Europe. The cooperation
of Moscow and Kiev will demonstrate the pan-European attitudes of both Slavic
The above-mentioned factors pertain to Belarus, where integration intentions
are much more evident. However, the strategic and economic status of Belarus
is less important to Moscow than those of Kiev and Astana. Moreover, the domination
of a Moscow-Minsk axis will harm integration with Ukraine and Kazakhstan, which
is why integration with Belarus must proceed fluently without any sudden incidents
- along with other vectors of the Eurasian integration process.
Eurasianism as Weltanschauung
The last definition of Eurasianism characterizes a specific Weltanschauung:
a political philosophy combining tradition, modernity, and even elements of
postmodernism. This philosophy has as its priority traditional society; acknowledges
the imperative of technical and social modernization (without separating from
traditional culture); and strives for the adaptation of its ideological program
to postindustrial, informational society, which is called postmodernism.
Postmodernism formally removes counter positions of tradition and modernism,
disfranchising and making them equal. Eurasian postmodernism, on the contrary,
promotes an alliance of tradition and modernism as a constructive, optimistic,
energetic impulse towards creation and growth.
Eurasian philosophy does not deny the realities discovered by the Enlightment:
religion, nation, empire, culture, etc. At the same time, the best achievements
of modernism are used widely: technological and economic advances, social guarantees,
freedom of labor. Extremes meet each other, melting into a unifying harmonic
and original theory,
inspiring fresh thinking and new solutions for the eternal problems people
have faced throughout history.
Eurasianism is an open philosophy
Eurasianism is an open, non-dogmatic philosophy that can be
enriched with new content: religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries,
geopolitics, economics, national geography, culture, strategic and political
research, etc. Moreover, Eurasian philosophy offers original solutions in specific
cultural and lingual contexts: Russian Eurasianism will not be the same as French,
German, or Iranian versions. However, the main framework of the philosophy will
Principles of Eurasianism
The basic principles of Eurasianism are the following:
· differentialism, the pluralism of value systems versus the conventional obligatory
domination of one ideology (American liberal-democracy first and foremost);
· tradition versus suppression of cultures, dogmas, and discoveries of traditional
· rights of nations versus the "gold billions" and neocolonial hegemony
of the "rich North";
· ethnicities as values and subjects of history versus the depersonalization
of nations, imprisoned into artificial social constructions;
· social fairness and human solidarity versus exploitation and humiliation
of man by man.
Home Page |
Eurasian theory in 4 maps |
Eurasian Common House | Eurasian Manifest | Eurasian Path | Eurasian Vision | Millstones of eruasianism | Structure